Well done at the tax rate. Thats all that happened. A huge new tax on non electric car sales.
Making the population to have to save up and get an electric car. Pay a huge new tax on a non electric car.
At one point, the US had a way for people to largely write off their SUV's. One local woman drove around a Ford Expedition for her "candle business". The deduction was "limited" to $100,000 or your overall business income, whichever was less. http://www.selfemployedweb.com...
I don't think you have really "tested" an EV unless you have lived with it for a month in -30C weather.
After all, Petrofueled vehicles don't have issues at those temperatures?
We have this strange dynamic developing of anti--EV people who live in warm climates obsessing about how the things work in Alaska or Norway. I think they might be the same people who freak out when one Tesla caught fire, while petrofueled vehicles burn up every day.
They have this problem as well with fossil fueled cars, that is why many cars in colder climates (e.g. Scandiavian countries, Canada) are equipped with a block heater.
Finally - I'm amazed that it took someone this long to point out the truth. We have petrophiles complaining about cold batteries, and ignoring that some folks start fires under their oil sump to get their vehicles warm enough to start.
In Alaska cities, parking meters have electrical outlets to plug your car into to keep it warm.
There's a famous article from an employee at OKCupid about how men and women rank peoples' attractiveness. I'm linking to archive.org, since it seems there's been an attempt to scrub the article from the Internet.
Thanks, I had heard about the study, good to finally see it.
"Only" 2%?? That's 1 in 50. For a huge life altering consequence, those odds are absolutely high enough to treat it as a big deal. You people who claim things like that and the 2-10% (1 in 50 to 1 in 10) percent of false rape accusations make them so rare that no rational person should ever assume that's the case are batshit insane.
While we must understand that not everything can be perfect, we must remember that allowing a false accuser to go unpunished is like saying that it's okay to hand out capital punishment to innocent people.
In either case, a crime has been committed, and allowing a guilty party to escape justice is then approved.
I don't think so. I fully support women who claim rape and shown to be false should go to jail for the crime of rape, then be registered sex offenders upon their release.
This doesn't mean not enough evidence for a conviction, this means provable false statements, and intent.
A woman can have multiple partners, become pregnant, and pick which one she wishes to raise a child with.
Not sure which country you are in but in the UK that isn't the case. In the event that you are wrongly named as the parent of a child you can request a DNA test, and if the mother refuses then you are deemed not to be the father.
In order to get a DNA test you of course have to suspect that you are not the parent first. But if you do, there is pretty much nothing the mother can do to avoid the DNA test other than to accept you have no legal obligation to pay maintenance.
I'm in the USA. I'm not certain where you get your information from, but we have a lot of men paying child support for children that are not theirs biologically.
Now if you want to know why a lot of men are pissed, we live in a country where bullshit like punishing rape victims is sancioned by the threat of jail time as long as they are males, and as I wrote, you can be forced to support a child that your wife just felt like fucking someone else for fun. It's real, and it carries the force of law. The only part the internet plays is giving us the links to the examples.
If the man acted as the father of the child at any point in time, even for a very short period, then the judge will refuse the DNA testing. The reason for this is that the "well-being of the child" is more important than anything else... and obviously the mother needs the man's money to make sure her child has the best future possible.
If the goal is to keep men out of marriage and away from relationships with women, they are succeeding.
TBH, I'm tempted to join, just to reject as many women as possible. Considering they don't think men are actual people, it seems fair to treat them like pieces of meat and reject all but the best looking ones.
Funny - my wife has said the same thing. Sounds like a bit of fun.
Actually,even France allows paternity testing, with a legal order.
There are time lines involved, but well, that is a problem of the opposite, too much trust.
Yes they do, but good luck with that, as the law wants to alwayts dwetermine paternity, which in modern days has nothing to do with who the man who sired the child is.
Unless something has changed, in pretty much all of the US, the husband is the "putative father", and even if paternity is later established to be someone else the court can leave child support orders in place if in the "best interests of the child" (e.g. if the neighborhood hood who was the genetic donor has a lower income )
In Canada, Sperm donors are not allowed anonymity, which means that a sperm donor is easy to find. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada... . And don't for a minute think that the known Sperm donor will not be sued for support. The child and th emother are the Important parties.
tl;dr version - a man would have to be a fool do donate sperm, and not that smart to enter into a marriage contract these days of institutionalized cuckholdery.
Which western countries are these? In all of Europe you can't be held responsible for someone else's child, although if you did contribute to their upbringing and only found out later you often can't recover that money either.
Do you have any stats for the causes of male suicide? Everything I can find that isn't an MRA blog only lists relationships as one of many causes, usually not the first in the unordered list, so I'm interested to know if this claim has any statistical basis.
https://www.ibdna.com/paternit... > I believe you told me before that you are too busy to red my citations, but here is the rationale.
"The reasons for which the Government said the ban should remain were related to the preservation of peace within French families. According to some online articles, Germany, has also banned (or plans to ban) paternity testing for similar reasons. French psychologists suggest that fatherhood is determined by society not by biology. For this reason, the President’s wife Carla Bruni describes her father as the man ‘from whom she takes her name’. She is friends with her biological dad too but she doesn’t refer to him, or think of him as, her father.
So the woman retains her money supply, the Child is raised by someone other than the father, and the guy who the wife fucked and got pregnant with is ruinning around, legally allowed to fuck any woman and father children that he never has to spend a cent for.
Who has the better deal? I don't know about you, but I don't think it is wise and proper to force men to pay for children their wives purposely have with other men? It is the law, enforceably by a year in priison if you don't raise your cuckhold children, so apparently a lot of people believe that.
Seriously, mere rejection isn't enough, apparently there is a need to actively abuse men.
The creeps? Sure. They were supposed to learn this stuff years ago, but refused to then and still refuse now.
Like all living things, people do not grow except in response to pressure of some kind. The relatively gentle pressures of the schoolyard are sufficient for most, but some people dig in their heels, and then sterner measures must be taken.
You know, this is an example of a double standard, like active and encouraged abuse by women is somehow a good thing. It's like ignoring a person is somehow bad or something. The MenProvement or douchebag initiative was aimed specifically and only at men.
Years ago after my divorce I used a couple of sites. I have a character flaw in that I am overly honest. Iâ(TM)m not to the point of being anti-social, but I canâ(TM)t rave about a cup of coffee thatâ(TM)s just good. So everything I put on the dating site was pretty much exactly on point. I am 5â(TM)6 I weigh ~215, my picture was about a week old when posted.
Hard to imagine that posting actual timely data is being overly honest though.
I wonder if this might help overcome some of the distrust that has arise over the last decade. When the female pill was invented it was very liberating for women, and while things are different for men today perhaps it might also help some men who have anxiety about unwanted pregnancy.
My guess is that it won't. A woman can have multiple partners, become pregnant, and pick which one she wishes to raise a child with. The claim would be that the birth control somehow . Not all countries allow the man to DNA test his presumed children. I'm not even certain that a vasectomy would be protection.
Yup, trust has sunk that low. And not without very good reasons.
That's racist.
Somehow.
Oh yes of course. It's objectifying the female body. So there, racist.
A couple of points here: Racism is a form of prejudice based on an imaginary social construct known as race that has been thoroughly debunked by modern genetic science..
If you catch AC's drift he's actually agreeing with you in a backhanded way.
Otherwise, you are spot on. How humans came up with the idea that things like skin pigmentation, epicanthal folds, and other simple variations make a human belong to one "race" or another is pathetically stupid.
But remembering there are a lot of stupid people out there, and having personally seen people referring to mockery of religion as racist, AC is right. Someone will try to make overweight into a racial issue. Look what they did with gender.
Sort of, Don't forget though, that Tinder launched a "menprovement initiative" to allow women to attack men that they found offensive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yes, this reads like an April fools joke. And it very well might be. But given Tinder's history, it is Onion level satire that rings true if it is a joke.
I get that people don’t want to waste time hooking up with a guy that is not within technical specs. It is just that I would think there might others concerns, like not getting raped.
It is a very shallow place, inhabited by very shallow people.
It's true. A LOT of women put a height requirement in their dating profile. I doubt most guys would dare put a weight requirement in.
On the other hand, I've been told by a lot of female friends that a surprising number of guys have strong height preferences for women too.
Well, there are preferences, and there are requirements. I like tall women, long legs and long hair.
But I've dated and been involved with shorties in my younger years.
For the requirements, I was watching a YT video, one of the "Where have all the good men gone" ones. I think it was a Network show like Dateline (calendar type dates).
They had a group of single woman and an interviewer sitting around what looked like a nice bar or restaurant. These were very physically attractive women. They were all in their mid-late 30's, and in professional careers. None could find a man that lived up to their requirements. And since the biological clock was ticking, they were getting desperate, like egg freezing desperate.
They went down their requirement list. The man's height was at or near the top of each.
Other requirements were to make as much money as they are, to be physically fit and handsome, and to be within a specific age range, and it was not stated, but pretty implicit they would be amenable to start fertility treatments immediately.
When looking at their lists, and talking about what to drop in order to make it easier to find a man - trying to give up the height requirement was tough for these ladies - the drive is that strong.
But what they are looking for is a bit of a unicorn anyhow. Finding a man that has all of their requirements is hard. A tall handsome, wealthy, single man in his late 30's early 40's who wants to get married and have children ASAP is a vanishingly small part of the population. It's like every man expecting to marry Sophia Vergara, and refusing to settle for anything less.
One of the first problems that is so often overlooked, is that in the quest for women to hold many high paying careers, is some rock bottom simple math.
There are just so many high paying jobs available. Simple math tells us that if we reach parity of something over 50 percent of women in those careers, that means that there will be less wealthy men available. So welcome to a part of equality they didn't think about. Men "marry down" all the time. The natural inclination of women is to "marry up" due to that security drive. But you can't have equal representation by sex and have women marry up all the time. The pool of men considered acceptable is being reduced by that equality. This is that simple math, and the only way to counteract that is to create many more lucrative careers, or women to fight against that basic drive.
So yeah, the woman who is making 6 or more figures in a lucrative career and racing her biological clock might just need to lower her standards. Or stay single.
Yeah, I'll throw a different wrinkle in for everyone. There are ladies like myself (transgender) who are perfectly upfront and honest on their Tinder profile. Then Tinder decides honesty is not always the best policy and bans your account.
Not surprising. I think that Tinder is a monument to dishonesty myself. Did they give any reason?
Why would a space power capable enough to comprehensively flak the entire orbital sphere, wish to do so? To deny a larger space power their advantage? If they're exploiting their advantage so ruthlessly that someone else is willing to shoot off their own foot to stop them, then maybe hitting the reset button and taking a hiatus for a few generations to reflect on what went wrong would be a good thing.
Let's say you were the leader of a rogue state - there are a few. One way to punish countries like the US is to take away our toys. Seems some people in government agree since they are ressurecting Loran-C.
And we do have the example of India launching one. As well, you don't have to have much guidance, just a couple ton fragment space grenade.
While I don't thiink this is all that likely, hey - strange stuff happens.
More than explosive satellite killers, I'm concerned about EMP events.
But I'm sort of surprised that so many here don't think this is a big deal.
Slashdot Mirror
Well done at the tax rate. Thats all that happened. A huge new tax on non electric car sales. Making the population to have to save up and get an electric car. Pay a huge new tax on a non electric car.
At one point, the US had a way for people to largely write off their SUV's. One local woman drove around a Ford Expedition for her "candle business". The deduction was "limited" to $100,000 or your overall business income, whichever was less. http://www.selfemployedweb.com...
So there is prior art.
I don't think you have really "tested" an EV unless you have lived with it for a month in -30C weather.
After all, Petrofueled vehicles don't have issues at those temperatures?
We have this strange dynamic developing of anti--EV people who live in warm climates obsessing about how the things work in Alaska or Norway. I think they might be the same people who freak out when one Tesla caught fire, while petrofueled vehicles burn up every day.
They have this problem as well with fossil fueled cars, that is why many cars in colder climates (e.g. Scandiavian countries, Canada) are equipped with a block heater.
Finally - I'm amazed that it took someone this long to point out the truth. We have petrophiles complaining about cold batteries, and ignoring that some folks start fires under their oil sump to get their vehicles warm enough to start.
In Alaska cities, parking meters have electrical outlets to plug your car into to keep it warm.
(((That's our goal!)))
It is a completely un-natural situation to be certain, but we live in un-natural times.
There's a famous article from an employee at OKCupid about how men and women rank peoples' attractiveness. I'm linking to archive.org, since it seems there's been an attempt to scrub the article from the Internet.
Thanks, I had heard about the study, good to finally see it.
"Only" 2%?? That's 1 in 50. For a huge life altering consequence, those odds are absolutely high enough to treat it as a big deal. You people who claim things like that and the 2-10% (1 in 50 to 1 in 10) percent of false rape accusations make them so rare that no rational person should ever assume that's the case are batshit insane.
While we must understand that not everything can be perfect, we must remember that allowing a false accuser to go unpunished is like saying that it's okay to hand out capital punishment to innocent people.
In either case, a crime has been committed, and allowing a guilty party to escape justice is then approved.
I don't think so. I fully support women who claim rape and shown to be false should go to jail for the crime of rape, then be registered sex offenders upon their release.
This doesn't mean not enough evidence for a conviction, this means provable false statements, and intent.
A woman can have multiple partners, become pregnant, and pick which one she wishes to raise a child with.
Not sure which country you are in but in the UK that isn't the case. In the event that you are wrongly named as the parent of a child you can request a DNA test, and if the mother refuses then you are deemed not to be the father.
In order to get a DNA test you of course have to suspect that you are not the parent first. But if you do, there is pretty much nothing the mother can do to avoid the DNA test other than to accept you have no legal obligation to pay maintenance.
I'm in the USA. I'm not certain where you get your information from, but we have a lot of men paying child support for children that are not theirs biologically.
https://www.abc15.com/news/nat...
Florida: https://www.myfloridalaw.com/c...
In 2014, a rape victim was forsce to pay child support! https://www.usatoday.com/story...
He was 14, she was 20. She raped him, became pregnant, and the law says that he must support the child that his rapist mothered.
Here's Wikipedia on the subject : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Now if you want to know why a lot of men are pissed, we live in a country where bullshit like punishing rape victims is sancioned by the threat of jail time as long as they are males, and as I wrote, you can be forced to support a child that your wife just felt like fucking someone else for fun. It's real, and it carries the force of law. The only part the internet plays is giving us the links to the examples.
If the man acted as the father of the child at any point in time, even for a very short period, then the judge will refuse the DNA testing. The reason for this is that the "well-being of the child" is more important than anything else... and obviously the mother needs the man's money to make sure her child has the best future possible.
If the goal is to keep men out of marriage and away from relationships with women, they are succeeding.
Yeah right. DNA testing not allowed? Quit your bullshit.
Even though you are a ra bit rude here - just for you - a link. https://www.ibdna.com/paternit...
Paternity tests must be ordered by a judge, and since the concern is for the support of the mother and child, they are loathe to do that.
But yes Virginia, a man doing a home DNA test kit can be punished by a year in jail.
TBH, I'm tempted to join, just to reject as many women as possible. Considering they don't think men are actual people, it seems fair to treat them like pieces of meat and reject all but the best looking ones.
Funny - my wife has said the same thing. Sounds like a bit of fun.
Actually ,even France allows paternity testing, with a legal order.
There are time lines involved, but well, that is a problem of the opposite, too much trust.
Yes they do, but good luck with that, as the law wants to alwayts dwetermine paternity, which in modern days has nothing to do with who the man who sired the child is.
Unless something has changed, in pretty much all of the US, the husband is the "putative father", and even if paternity is later established to be someone else the court can leave child support orders in place if in the "best interests of the child" (e.g. if the neighborhood hood who was the genetic donor has a lower income )
You can even be held liable if you are a sperm donor. https://montesfamilylaw.com/ca...
And here is the bill they are workin on passing (SB 115) http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/...
In Canada, Sperm donors are not allowed anonymity, which means that a sperm donor is easy to find. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada... . And don't for a minute think that the known Sperm donor will not be sued for support. The child and th emother are the Important parties.
And some women are demanding the absolute right to find and know who donated sperm https://www.wbur.org/npr/14047...
tl;dr version - a man would have to be a fool do donate sperm, and not that smart to enter into a marriage contract these days of institutionalized cuckholdery.
Which western countries are these? In all of Europe you can't be held responsible for someone else's child, although if you did contribute to their upbringing and only found out later you often can't recover that money either.
Do you have any stats for the causes of male suicide? Everything I can find that isn't an MRA blog only lists relationships as one of many causes, usually not the first in the unordered list, so I'm interested to know if this claim has any statistical basis.
If you read French, here is the statute. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr...
https://www.ibdna.com/paternit... > I believe you told me before that you are too busy to red my citations, but here is the rationale.
"The reasons for which the Government said the ban should remain were related to the preservation of peace within French families. According to some online articles, Germany, has also banned (or plans to ban) paternity testing for similar reasons. French psychologists suggest that fatherhood is determined by society not by biology. For this reason, the President’s wife Carla Bruni describes her father as the man ‘from whom she takes her name’. She is friends with her biological dad too but she doesn’t refer to him, or think of him as, her father.
So the woman retains her money supply, the Child is raised by someone other than the father, and the guy who the wife fucked and got pregnant with is ruinning around, legally allowed to fuck any woman and father children that he never has to spend a cent for.
Who has the better deal? I don't know about you, but I don't think it is wise and proper to force men to pay for children their wives purposely have with other men? It is the law, enforceably by a year in priison if you don't raise your cuckhold children, so apparently a lot of people believe that.
Ah..... male privilege in it's highest form.
Seriously, mere rejection isn't enough, apparently there is a need to actively abuse men.
The creeps? Sure. They were supposed to learn this stuff years ago, but refused to then and still refuse now.
Like all living things, people do not grow except in response to pressure of some kind. The relatively gentle pressures of the schoolyard are sufficient for most, but some people dig in their heels, and then sterner measures must be taken.
You know, this is an example of a double standard, like active and encouraged abuse by women is somehow a good thing. It's like ignoring a person is somehow bad or something. The MenProvement or douchebag initiative was aimed specifically and only at men.
Women are incapable of being jerks it would seem.
Years ago after my divorce I used a couple of sites. I have a character flaw in that I am overly honest. Iâ(TM)m not to the point of being anti-social, but I canâ(TM)t rave about a cup of coffee thatâ(TM)s just good. So everything I put on the dating site was pretty much exactly on point. I am 5â(TM)6 I weigh ~215, my picture was about a week old when posted.
Hard to imagine that posting actual timely data is being overly honest though.
I wonder if this might help overcome some of the distrust that has arise over the last decade. When the female pill was invented it was very liberating for women, and while things are different for men today perhaps it might also help some men who have anxiety about unwanted pregnancy.
My guess is that it won't. A woman can have multiple partners, become pregnant, and pick which one she wishes to raise a child with. The claim would be that the birth control somehow . Not all countries allow the man to DNA test his presumed children. I'm not even certain that a vasectomy would be protection.
Yup, trust has sunk that low. And not without very good reasons.
That's racist. Somehow. Oh yes of course. It's objectifying the female body. So there, racist.
A couple of points here: Racism is a form of prejudice based on an imaginary social construct known as race that has been thoroughly debunked by modern genetic science..
If you catch AC's drift he's actually agreeing with you in a backhanded way.
Otherwise, you are spot on. How humans came up with the idea that things like skin pigmentation, epicanthal folds, and other simple variations make a human belong to one "race" or another is pathetically stupid.
But remembering there are a lot of stupid people out there, and having personally seen people referring to mockery of religion as racist, AC is right. Someone will try to make overweight into a racial issue. Look what they did with gender.
Looks like an early April Fools joke.
Sort of, Don't forget though, that Tinder launched a "menprovement initiative" to allow women to attack men that they found offensive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yes, this reads like an April fools joke. And it very well might be. But given Tinder's history, it is Onion level satire that rings true if it is a joke.
I get that people don’t want to waste time hooking up with a guy that is not within technical specs. It is just that I would think there might others concerns, like not getting raped.
It is a very shallow place, inhabited by very shallow people.
It's true. A LOT of women put a height requirement in their dating profile. I doubt most guys would dare put a weight requirement in.
On the other hand, I've been told by a lot of female friends that a surprising number of guys have strong height preferences for women too.
Well, there are preferences, and there are requirements. I like tall women, long legs and long hair.
But I've dated and been involved with shorties in my younger years.
For the requirements, I was watching a YT video, one of the "Where have all the good men gone" ones. I think it was a Network show like Dateline (calendar type dates).
They had a group of single woman and an interviewer sitting around what looked like a nice bar or restaurant. These were very physically attractive women. They were all in their mid-late 30's, and in professional careers. None could find a man that lived up to their requirements. And since the biological clock was ticking, they were getting desperate, like egg freezing desperate.
They went down their requirement list. The man's height was at or near the top of each.
Other requirements were to make as much money as they are, to be physically fit and handsome, and to be within a specific age range, and it was not stated, but pretty implicit they would be amenable to start fertility treatments immediately.
When looking at their lists, and talking about what to drop in order to make it easier to find a man - trying to give up the height requirement was tough for these ladies - the drive is that strong.
But what they are looking for is a bit of a unicorn anyhow. Finding a man that has all of their requirements is hard. A tall handsome, wealthy, single man in his late 30's early 40's who wants to get married and have children ASAP is a vanishingly small part of the population. It's like every man expecting to marry Sophia Vergara, and refusing to settle for anything less.
One of the first problems that is so often overlooked, is that in the quest for women to hold many high paying careers, is some rock bottom simple math.
There are just so many high paying jobs available. Simple math tells us that if we reach parity of something over 50 percent of women in those careers, that means that there will be less wealthy men available. So welcome to a part of equality they didn't think about. Men "marry down" all the time. The natural inclination of women is to "marry up" due to that security drive. But you can't have equal representation by sex and have women marry up all the time. The pool of men considered acceptable is being reduced by that equality. This is that simple math, and the only way to counteract that is to create many more lucrative careers, or women to fight against that basic drive.
So yeah, the woman who is making 6 or more figures in a lucrative career and racing her biological clock might just need to lower her standards. Or stay single.
Yeah, I'll throw a different wrinkle in for everyone. There are ladies like myself (transgender) who are perfectly upfront and honest on their Tinder profile. Then Tinder decides honesty is not always the best policy and bans your account.
Not surprising. I think that Tinder is a monument to dishonesty myself. Did they give any reason?
Hot Crazy matrix for guys...
Have you checked out Terrance Popp on YT? Here's one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... He's pretty brutal. Funny too!
When they're demanding my dick, that usually bodes well, then again I don't use Tinder.
That's a good move. Personally, I think that while many women use it for a meal, perhaps sex, I think that it's a fun way for them to reject more men.
And then there's the $10M question:
Why would a space power capable enough to comprehensively flak the entire orbital sphere, wish to do so? To deny a larger space power their advantage? If they're exploiting their advantage so ruthlessly that someone else is willing to shoot off their own foot to stop them, then maybe hitting the reset button and taking a hiatus for a few generations to reflect on what went wrong would be a good thing.
Let's say you were the leader of a rogue state - there are a few. One way to punish countries like the US is to take away our toys. Seems some people in government agree since they are ressurecting Loran-C.
And we do have the example of India launching one. As well, you don't have to have much guidance, just a couple ton fragment space grenade.
While I don't thiink this is all that likely, hey - strange stuff happens.
More than explosive satellite killers, I'm concerned about EMP events.
But I'm sort of surprised that so many here don't think this is a big deal.
In addition, the sepia tint could be indicative of an older, less accurate photo...
Or even her mother......